Talk:Wesley College, Melbourne

Former good article nomineeWesley College, Melbourne was a Social sciences and society good articles nominee, but did not meet the good article criteria at the time. There may be suggestions below for improving the article. Once these issues have been addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake.
Article milestones
DateProcessResult
September 4, 2008Good article nomineeNot listed
On this day...Facts from this article were featured on Wikipedia's Main Page in the "On this day..." column on January 18, 2013, January 18, 2016, January 18, 2018, and January 18, 2022.

Wesley College might be editing the article to suit their own needs

If you notice, most of the article is written like an ad. I have no doubt that "Notable Alumni and Staff" was most definitly written by the school. 58.106.97.236 tried to delete a whole section of the article, probably because it was the only part not written by the school. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Penguinboy (talk • contribs) 14:21, 7 May 2007 (UTC).[reply]

It is to be expected that contributions can come from all sources, including ones quite close to an institution. I agree that an entry must not come across as self-promoting. Conversely however, an entry shouldn't include subjective criticism and the inclusion of commentary that is insignificant or irrelevant to a general understanding of a topic. Murtoa 15:23, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

As a student of the school, i consider myself able to decide what is subjective and objective with regards to this article. The section you deleted was not vandalism, it was a statement of the facts. How are facts "not encyclopedic". But even if you did find sections of the article that were "approaching vandalism" then you should have edited them, rather than deleting facts and content from the article. --Penguinboy 11:25, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

As a student of the school, you may be too close to the subject to be objective. The technology section that was deleted has several problems. Firstly much of it was non-notable. Many schools have integrated computers into the school. It would require something more, ie the first, or recognized as particularly innovative in approach, for this to be notable. Secondly it is entirely unsourced. This is particularly important in the section discussing the release of viruses and worms, which borders on libelous. Everything on Wikipedia should be sourced, and anything contentious must be. Unfortunately what you hear around the school yard does not count. --Michael Johnson 12:41, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You'll find that most of the edits on this page, excluding all of the vandalism, has been created by Students or Staff of Wesley College, Melbourne. I understand the WP rules, however, for a small article like this, does it really matter if the user is too close to the subject? Also, to Penguinboy, if you want to create a new section of the article, it really needs more content then a one line statement. --DogGunn 10:10, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Understanding the relevant guidelines then, you'll have a good appreciation for the dangers inherent in an article largely authored by insiders, and school articles are regrettably a major breeding ground for poor practices, usually associated with notability and verifiability. Murtoa 00:30, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Performing Arts

I edited this material to eliminate subjective and non-notable material. Every private school in Australia has its own theatre productions, so material in this article should be restricted to notable features, such as awards won. The list of productions is not-notable and description shouldn't contain editorial commentary as to the reputation of the respective companies. Murtoa 06:04, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Except perhaps where these productions have received Guild awards, or similar, perhaps you should focus on adding value to wikipedia, rather than subtracting it. StephenSmith (talk) 22:21, 16 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I have added substantial material to this and other articles, and have absolutely no problem expanding this section with notable material, provided it is accompanied by references to reliable, preferably independent sources. Murtoa (talk) 11:02, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Addition of substantial material - not NPOV, editorial, advertorial

I have reverted to a previous version after large amounts of editorial content were added, which has not been drawn from independent sources, which is not NPOV, and includes a great deal of school policy, values, vision etc which belongs only in school websites, history books, but not here. Have then examined legitimate changes during the period that this extraneous material has been added. Murtoa 05:03, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, it was all copywrited too ~~

Wesley College enrollment figures

Orginally on Wesley's Wikipedia page, the college enrolment claimed to be 2980 students. With further investigation. I have discovered that the person who calculated student population, didn't include the Elsterwick Campus (which is another 450 students!). (Glen Waverly Campus and St Kilda Rd campus student population together equals this figure, but not the Elstie campus!!!) Thus after counting the college rolls in the chronicle (yes, I'm procrastinating), there is a population of around 3448.

Further, I have also discovered that Wesley is also the LARGEST school by enrolment, not the 2nd. Haileybury's wikipedia page claims to be the largest, but they have a population of 3,200 -wesley college has 3,450 - 3,500. Many past newspaper articles (the age - 2006) have claimed that wesley is the largest school in Victoria.

If anybody has further information that condradicts these statements, please feel free to correct me! :) 58.107.228.3 (talk)

Claim has since expanded to biggest in Australia, then biggest in Southern Hemisphere. Either requires substantiation Murtoa (talk) 12:39, 16 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The Government figures for 2009 enrolments can be verified at the [1] website. 2806 students cited. Haileybury has 3083. [2] StephenSmith (talk) 10:37, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sustainability Section

Hi guys, I'm new to all this and i don't know how i should cite, but i have found the citations needed for the sustainability section. I'm still looking for the first citation but i have found the one needed for the second citation. It is "http://www.wesleycollege.net/resources/issue_101.pdf" —Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.107.216.22 (talk) 09:56, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Inserted ref and adjusted text Murtoa (talk) 02:50, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Trimmed quite a lot of additional info on sustainability just added. It's obviously a subject Wesley takes seriously, but the amount of material added is disproportionate to the entire article and a lot (eg. arrangement of rubbish bins according to their recyclability of the contents) is just not notable. Murtoa (talk) 13:13, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

History

I have substantially expanded the History section (which was about two or three sentences previously). I have largely drawn on the 2004 history of the school to source this. Although the book was the result of a project initiated by the school, it has been written by an independent historian and in my view is a reasonably weighted treatment of the topic and not afraid to be critical where deemed necessary. This book also drew on previous histories such as that written by Blainey and others for the school's centenary. Murtoa (talk) 12:15, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Andrew Lemon was the historian for the 2004 history. —Preceding unsigned comment added by StephenSmith (talk • contribs) 23:42, 23 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Facilities

The section on facilities should be restricted to elements that are unique or particularly notable about the College. Simply being a large school with many facilities isn't in itself notable. Naming the various function spaces etc is not encyclopedic. Furthermore, this section shouldn't mimic what would be typically found in the school's own website, and thus should be devoid of any marketing flavour or "showing the school in its best light". Also, intranet references are unhelpful. Murtoa (talk) 13:05, 15 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Have edited additions. The audit of facilities appears to incorrectly imply facilities Wesley owns on its campuses, when in some cases they seem to refer to off-site facilities that Wesley hires?
  • as far as I know Wesley doesn't boast a 50-metre pool unless you're claiming use of the town pool at Clunes?
  • I believe there are no more than three indoor basketball courts across the campuses. Wesley has access to, but does not control indoor courts elsewhere.
  • the locations of the six rowing centres need to be verified; where are they apart from at its rowing shed on the Yarra and the newly completed facility at Glen Waverley?
  • the mentions of academic facilities such as libraries, study areas, dark rooms, music and performing arts buildings, music lesson rooms, orchestra/band rehearsal rooms and recital rooms are not notable - they would be found at most schools similar to Wesley. Similarly, nearly every other school has "plans underway to build new facilities and refurbish old ones." Murtoa (talk) 13:54, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Have subsequently revised quoted the number of sporting facilities which I believe was previously misleading at best. My reference was local knowledge, but is verifiable by observation from Google Earth. St Kilda Rd campus has one football pitch (which doubles as a cricket pitch in summer), one soccer pitch and six tennis courts (over Punt Rd). Glen Waverley has 3 football ovals and 3 soccer pitches in winter - between them they allow for 5 cricket pitches in summer) - plus four tennis courts. Elsternwick has 4 tennis courts. Have totalled these for the revised entry. Murtoa (talk) 04:56, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have inquired with the College's Community College - Facilities Hire Department and I'm able to confirm that all the facilities listed above and on the article are surprisingly true and available, I have requested the college to send me a fact sheet, once received I will post the facilities available on this talk page for reference. They confirmed that the college has 6 rowing centres and they are located at: Glen Waverley, St. Kilda Road, Elsternwick, Albert Park (Albert Park Sports Complex with Wesley's Ovals and tennis centre), Yarra Boat Shed and Clunes. The GW campus has 8 Ovals, the elsternwick campus has 3 ovals and the skr campus has 7 at both the junior campus and middle + senior campus, the college controls/manages/has rights over 4 ovals at albert park, which they have incorporated into their tenis/hockey centre and rowing facility. There are like the article stated 45 tennis courts, 4 and 3 indoor sports complexes, however the college only has 22 drama and dance studios not 25, there are 3 25m swimming pool not 2, 4 multi-media centres, 3 recording studios which had won an engineering award. Will post new information once i have received the fact sheet and will make further inquires about the developments. Thanks for your contribution Murtoa.Sheepunderscore (talk) 07:40, 21 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I appreciate your follow up, and I'm sorry to be a pain, but the figures you have quoted simply don't ring true. One matter to settle first - a campus hiring or having access to an oval or tennis court off-campus doesn't in my opinion mean that you can state x campus has y ovals etc. It incorrectly implies that the facilities reside on campus. Accepting this, it is simply untrue to say that the Elsternwick campus has three ovals - I have been there and it has ... no ovals! But don't take my word for it - please have a look at Google Earth. The St Kilda Road campus has just one oval (football in winter, cricket in summer) and one soccer pitch on its campus. Regarding the rowing centres, how can Wesley lay claim to a facility at Albert Park? It may be able to use it, but it is simply misleading to state or imply that the College has these facilities within its campuses. On a similar basis I simply can't agree with the claim regarding tennis courts. In pure Wiki terms, these claims have to be verifiable preferably through independent sources. There is simply no source that can truthfully state that for example Elsternwick has three ovals! I note that the school itself [3] makes no claim to anything more than two swimming pools across all campuses, any ovals at Elsternwick or more than the two areas (football/soccer) at St Kilda Rd.
- Ultimately, quoting such large inaccurate numbers presents an unbalanced view of the school. Also, importantly for Wikipedia, the article should only mention aspects of the facilities that are notable. In this regard, I don't think many of the facilities at Wesley are particularly notable - they're actually quite good, but apart from Wesley boasting more campuses than other schools, the facilities per campus are not much different to similar private schools across Australia. Therefore the article shouldn't in my view, include such voluminous details. As stated earlier, such material belongs instead to a school marketing document, not this encyclopedia. Murtoa (talk) 13:00, 21 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Im arraging to attend a school tour this next wednesday as I have a day off. I will confirm facilities and clear up this mess once and for all:P. Cheers,Sheepunderscore (talk) 05:04, 23 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

tour of all three campuses? big day ahead! Have you had a look at Google Earth? That at least verifies the big green spaces and tennis courts... Murtoa (talk) 08:39, 23 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I will be attending a tour of the elsternwick and both SKR campuses this wednesday, and a tour of the gw campus in two weeks (unfortunately the tour for next week is full and i only get days off on wednesday) i will be personally making notes on the facilities instead of the much unreliable sourced stated in the article, if you guys want me 2 find out anything else please post your requests here. CheersSheepunderscore (talk) 05:32, 26 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'm familiar with the campuses - Glen Waverley the most, Elsternwick the least. One challenge you will have even after the tour is the issue of verifiability. While I may take your word for your findings, original "research" is a no-no per WP:NOR, and to ensure that content won't be challenged the trick will be to find independently verifiable sources. Ultimately, the issue of notability will arise - whether Glen Waverley boasts three football ovals or four is irrelevant if it's not notable info - and a lot of it won't be in my view. Murtoa (talk) 07:55, 26 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Good point , will try to look for independent sources, however tour will allow me to confirm sources:.Sheepunderscore(talk) 11:44, 26 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

In light of further amplification of figures (ovals, courts etc) which I suspect includes off site facilities not owned or perhaps even controlled by Wesley, I have reduced the part of the section to those which can be verified. Murtoa (talk) 12:39, 8 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry that i havent posted my findings for so long... the figures and facilities written by unknown user is mostly right and accurate, this is because the college owns and operates numerous private sporting facilities and have management and other rights to public venues, the images seen on google earth is also inaccurate, and ovals seen on google earth are a little misleading as all you see is just grass, some 'ovals' are actually split into 2 or more ovals. will keep everyone updated!Sheepunderscore (talk) 10:19, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I disagree with your assertion, on the basis of my regular visit to the campuses but in any case will ultimately be guided by verifiable information as per WP:V. This will rule out counting as within campuses facilities that Wesley uses offsite away from its campuses, and will also rule out counting a cricket oval in summer which is a football oval in winter as two ovals. As a further guide to verifiability, you may wish to refer to this, this, this and this from Wesley's own website (accessible here). Again, I know you mean well, but this is not about your original research (refer WP:NOR) but what is actually verifiable. Murtoa (talk) 12:44, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I see your point... just trying to clear up some of the confusion about the facilities of wesley college. The large number of ovals reported are due to large ovals split into smaller ones and offsite wesley managed / owned / etc. facilities —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sheepunderscore (talk • contribs) 10:46, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Houses, pastoral care, facilities

I have edited the recently expanded content on Houses, Pastoral Care and Facilities. In the case of Houses and Pastoral Care, the content added was largely not notable in that it would mirror what all schools similar to Wesley would have. I attempted to edit the content to increase its relevance and notability. In the case of facilities, I think the statistics on ovals etc is either incorrect or highly misleading in that it encompasses facilities used by Wesley that are not actually on Wesley campuses. Unless there is verification of these claims they shouldn't be on the page. I'm happy to debate and refine the content to improve the quality of the article. Murtoa (talk) 22:45, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

General comments on quality

I thought the facilities by 58.175.154.98 and history section was excellent, keep up the good work. I will be reviewing this article next month so keep up the good work and lets see if I can rated as a GA and move up the importence scale to mid. Sheepunderscore (talk) 12:08, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The challenge is to maintain the encyclopaedic nature of the article (refer my additional comments above). The facilities section in my view still remains quite voluminous and has too many elements which come across as not NPOV but more of a marketing flavour. I think the size of this section needs to be of appropriate size with regards rest of article. Info about the orchards at Glen Waverley have little to do with facilities, and other elements eg. darkrooms - are not notable, since they would be found at many similar schools. They should not find their way into this article for sake of completeness, and are more appropriately referenced in a school website. Murtoa (talk) 13:14, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed 58.175.154.122 (talk) 10:46, 21 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Just a comment that I would say there is still far too much content on facilities, sustainability and development. This isn't a collation of the school newsletter, so perhaps details on every project are unnecessary. The 'structure' section is either part of the lead or part of the 'campuses' section - it should not exist on its own. Also, a list of headmasters has questionable value, and the section on miscellaneous facts (motto, crest, etc.) need only be part of the infobox; if it doesn't fit there, delete it. I know I'm biased in saying the Caulfield Grammar School article is a good example, but there are not many examples of unimportant facts being included there. Harro5 09:33, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I largely agree with your comments. I'm not sure I'd use the Caulfield Grammar School article as a model, as that appears to have other deficiencies, but certainly the areas you have highlighted - facilities, sustainability and development - remain flabby in the Wesley article. The facilities part has been under challenge for a while, and there are editors from time to time who want more of a marketing flavour, which tends to blow out these areas. Sustainability is a harder section since I believe Wesley's actions in this area are notable, but I guess ultimately if the claims aren't supported by good enough sources then they are under question. Appreciate your recent edits. Murtoa (talk) 22:31, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I have progressively slimmed down the sustainability and development sections and facilities generally, with an emphasis on notable elements that don't rely exclusively on sources from within the school. I will also remove the symbols section, relocating the only referenced sections into History, although they may not stand up on notability grounds. Murtoa (talk) 06:32, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Campuses

The information provided on the campuses added is unsourced (“all my own work”), does not add information that is either relevant or notable, and contains editorial comment that is not written from a neutral point of view (“grand”, “innovative”, an “extension of home”, “latest facilities”, “quiet contemplation”) etc . In my opinion the article should not contain information that could be written for any other major private school, is subjective, or promotional commentary more suited to a brochure advertising the school. Murtoa (talk) 22:36, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Crest

I notice there's been some swapping between the well-recognised logo seen at every Wesley campus and in marketing material, versus the claimed "official" crest, which I must admit I've never seen anywhere but in this instance. I would have thought the Wesley website might be a good reference point here, and unless I haven't looked far enough I can't see any instance of the "official" crest, but many instances of the logo. The "official" crest appears no longer in regular or common use, and the image that should headline this article should help reinforce the current branding used by the school. Therefore I strongly suggest that the logo be used in place of the "official" crest. Murtoa 13:10, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The official crest was actually found on the Wesley website. I think it should be used as this article exists for encyclopedic purposes not marketing purposes.Loopla 08:58, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Agree that the article must use encyclopaedic and not promotional content. The term "marketing logo" was being used here (and I didn't coin the term) to try to distinguish from the "crest" that has been displayed. To be clear, I don't think the crest currently displayed is in common use at all (and I have trawled the Wesley website but regret I am having troubling finding it), whereas the other representation is almost ubiquitous. On that basis I would change the image. Murtoa 12:53, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The crest can be found a few times on the site (usually on official documentation), e.g. at http://www.wesleycollege.net/v3/app2/files/GE_App_form_2008.doc It is also used constantly by the Old Collegians.Loopla 15:44, 11 July 2007 (UTC).[reply]

I would like to draw to your attention that the correct/official crest may be the one shown here. To my knowledge this crest appears on official school publications and the APS sports website. I'm however uncertain whether it is the correct/official one or if the one on the article is the correct/official one/ Please Comment! Sheepunderscore (talk) 10:42, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

They look pretty much the same crest except that the one currently in the article is a "one colour" execution versus the multicolour execution you have produced. Murtoa (talk) 12:23, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Would it be possible for someone to change the current blue and white Lion logo to one from the Wesley website that has a tongue? Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2001:8003:1003:3E00:6C64:7248:931C:CAE1 (talk) 03:06, 7 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Wesley College, Melbourne/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

I am reviewing this article and will report shortly. Brianboulton (talk) 14:31, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Preliminary comments

I have read the article carefully. In my view it does not at present meet the required standard for Good Article, for the following reasons:-

  • Prose: the prose is in need of considerable attention. Here are some examples of poor practice:-
    • Multiple repetitions of Adamson's name in the short "Adamson era" section
    • Clumsy sentence constructions, such as: (please note these are examples)
      • "In 1942 the Australian Government, in response to the growing threat of Japanese attacks, requisitioned that Wesley hand over its campus to the Australian Army..."
      • "By the mid-1980s, Cato was struggling financially and in 1986 agreed to integrate with Wesley, which was completed by 1989"
    • Sentences with unrelated clauses linked by "and", e.g. "Wesley had seven headmasters in its first 35 years, and struggled for numbers over the same period".
    • Unexplained jargon terms, e.g. L.O.T.E, Association of Public Schools (APC) competition (what sort of competition?), and unexplained roles of President and Chairman.
    • Inappropriate capitalisations, e.g. Co-educational, Major Building Development
  • Referencing
    • The article is seriously short of in-line citations in some sections. The "Campuses" section has one citation, House system and pastoral care has none, Sustainability has one. There is an existing "citation needed" tag in the Development section, and there could be many more throughout the article.
    • Choice of sources: Your main sources come from the College itself (through various websites) or from a book entitled "A great Australian School". Why are these sources reliable? (Incidentally, I couldn't get [1] to work). These sources do not suggest that the information you have gathered for the article is particularly neutral. Are there no unconnected sources that you could have drawn on? I am also concerned about [22], where it is not clear what the source is, and [30] which appears to be a copy of a job advertisement.

I do not think that these are in any way irredeemable faults, only that a fair amount work is necessary. You've probably looked already at Aquinas College, Perth, which has a better balance between history and the present day, and might be a useful GA model for Australian school articles.

I am putting the article on hold for seven days, to give you a chance to respond, and will look at it again then. Please contact me on my talkpage if you have any specific queries. Brianboulton (talk) 16:43, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]


Your feedback re the GA nomination is valuable and helpful, and I have begun attending to the article in regards to prose and balance of history versus other elements. Having contributed most of the history content, I was aware at the time that I was relying heavily on the most recent school history, which although written "independently" by a credentialled historian, was nevertheless initiated (I think) or at the very least endorsed by the school. I was comfortable in relying on it however to the extent that it does provide quite a "warts and all" commentary, thus at least suggesting it has a sense of balance and NPOV. Overriding this however has been the lack of reliable alternative sources. Most others (where they exist at all) come from the school or from less reliable sources some of which are still connected in some way with the school. On balance I took the view that notable elements of the school history should still appear even if the source provided wasn't as "pure" as it could be. I also note that the Aquinas College, Perth article which you suggest as a useful model has no less than 21 references to a similar school history which appears at least according to this to perhaps have been initiated by that school. Your thoughts? Murtoa (talk) 06:53, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your note. I suppose that it's the nature of a school history that it tends to come from the school itself, or from someone closely associated with it. It's just a pity that yours is called "A Great Australian School", which tends to undermine its credibility. I don't know anything about the Australian education system, but here in the UK all schools are subject to a body called OFSTED (Office for Standards in Education), which reports regularly on schools, these reports being in the public domain. There are also the government's performance league tables, published each year, which rank schools in accordance with their students' exam results - again, I don't know whether this happens in Australia. A school like Wesley College has lots of famous alumni, many of whom will have written memoirs or had biographies written, and these will probably contain information on their schooldays. These are suggestions for getting some more objective comment and/or data into the article - do they make sense to you? Brianboulton (talk) 09:51, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Many thanks for the prompt feedback. Interestingly, reporting on school standards is a current point of debate in Australia - the relatively new Rudd government is planning into introduce nationwide league tables along the lines you suggest. But there's not much in that vein at time of writing. Regarding the history, the suggestion to consult biographies is a sound one (notwithstanding it could entail many hours of labour!) I appreciate the title of the most recent history of Wesley is unhelpful for those seeking neutral references, although hopefully this concern is partially mitigated by the sections I have referenced which hopefully do come through in the article as not unduly singing Wesley's praises. The largely unsourced or directly school-sourced sections in the article are a concern and have been a constant source of debate regarding their inclusion. Your feedback could be helpful in resolving these areas, but I fear not within the next seven days! Thanks again. Murtoa (talk) 10:06, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I realise that you may not be able to do it all in seven days. However, let's see where we stand at the end of the period, and then consider what kind of timeframe may be necessary. Brianboulton (talk) 19:04, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Final GA comments

The article is in better shape than when I last looked at it; obviously a lot of work has been done. It cannot yet be promoted to GA, for the reasons which I have listed below. I understand that this is the editors' first shot at a GA, and it's a commendable effort which, with a little extra work, should definitely get there. At the end of the review I've given some suggestions as to how to proceed from here.

Attention is required:-

  • Earlier points not yet dealt with
    • Still no explanantion of the role or function of the "President"
    • Ditto for the role of Chairman, which is only mentioned in the infobox, not in the article.
  • Infobox: I think there's too much information in here, including some of a transient nature. I suggest you delete Fees (which will frequently change), Revenue (for the same reason) and No. of employees (not interesting enough)
  • Prose: the prose is generally OK, but we want it to be excellent. I find it a bit pedestrian at present. I've done a couple or so tweaks to improve the flow, but it needs more comprehensive attention. The best treatment would be a full copyedit from one of the Wikipedians that specialise in this; there is a list of names on WP:WikiProject Guild of Copy Editors.
  • Lead section
    • "Wesley is the largest school in Australia by both student enrolment and school size". What does "school size" mean in this context? In my experience the size of a school is always reckoned by student numbers alone.
    • The fact that the fees are the highest in Victoria is mentioned here but not elsewhere in the article. The general rule is that anything mentioned in the lead shoud e reflected, in greater detail, in the body of the article.
  • History section
    • The decision of the state government to grant land and funds should be dated
    • Apart from being benefactors, who were Alfred and Geoge Nicholas?
    • I have a problem with the projection of £200,000 in (presumably) 1933 to a 2004 value of $A75 million. For a start, why 2004? According to Measuringworth.com, £200,000 in 1933 has a current sterling value of about £10 million, which converts to around $A25 million. Can you check the basis of your figures?
    • The second sentence in the final aragraph needs a citation
    • Re McArthur: Four years is a pretty short tenure, and to talk about "the latter period" of such a brief time seems wrong. I'd omit the words "the latter period of" from the sentence.
  • Images: Image placement causes problems on my screen, whichever of my two available browsers I use. On Mozilla Firefox, the subsection edit links become displaced, and all bunch together around the Sport section On Internet Explorer that problem doesn't arise, but instead a huge white space appears under the Facilties heading. I tried solving the problem by some experimental image placements, but this didn't work. I wonder if either of these problems occur on your screen? Whether they do or not, it's something that needs fixing, and I don't know how to do this. I suggest you take the problem to WP:Help. (NB Overimaging may be the root of the problem)
  • Structural point: why are Performing Arts and Sports not subsections of Facilities?
  • Wesley College Institute: The nature of this body needs more explanation - and the link to the specialist article isn't a lot of help. Does it have premises, staff, a corporate structure? Who funds it? In other words, is it an actual body, separate from the school, or is it a name which the school uses to pursue certain activities?
  • References: Much improved, but still a problem area.
    • Lemon's book needs to be listed as a "Source", not as Further reading. The same is true of other books that you have cited, including Blainey et al and various Wesley College publications.
    • The following online references do not appear to be formatted properly: [4], [10], [25], [33], [34], [38], [39]
    • Ref.[8] should state that this source is a pay-to-see subscription service
    • [40], [42] and [43]: Is this a book? If so, it should be listed with other source books
    • Saying that something is "available on request" isn't really good enough. If the letter hasn't been published, it shouldn't be cited as a source.
  • MOS:
    • Single page numbers should be formatted as "p. 27" not "p.27"
    • Page ranges should be formatted as "pp. 247–48", with an ndash rather than a hyphen in the range.
    • "See also" sections come before the references list.

I appreciate that this is quite an agenda, but it's all quite do-able. My suggestion is that when you feel you have done as much as you can to resolve these issues, you contact me via my talkpage so that I can look at it again. I'll advise you if I think it is ready for another shot at GA then. My best wishes for the article's future. Brianboulton (talk) 16:41, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Overall GA result: Fail

Individual GA criteria:-

Well written: Fail, prose still requires significant attention

Verifiable: Fail, further work needed

Breadth: Pass

Neutral: Pass

Stable: Pass

Images: Technical problems to be resolved.


Alfred and George Nicholas made their fortune in pharmaceuticals, especially commercially available aspirin. There is a Nicholas Gardens in the Dandenong Ranges in Victoria, Australia. [4] StephenSmith (talk) 23:51, 23 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The multi-colour version was created and introduced by an early headmaster, the original is housed in the archives collection at St Kilda Rd Melbourne campus. It used to appear on the sporting honours blazer at the school. —Preceding unsigned comment added by StephenSmith (talk • contribs) 23:46, 23 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Images

I hold an opinion that there are far too many images now in the article, and some are too trivial for inclusion. For example, the Clunes logo and principal's headshot. Wikipedia is not a directory or a substitute for a full school marketing handbook, and the focus is on information not promotion. Harro5 09:38, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • I agree with this. While images can add "colour" to an article, essentially they should modestly support the content and not imbue a marketing flavour. While some of the images produced have added positively to the article, I think on balance that there are now too many. I agree that the principal's photo and the Clunes logo are excessive; I'd also consider the Fitzroy community banner (or maybe logo) and the Old Collegians logo as surplus. Murtoa (talk) 11:12, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

To Do List...

Here are the problems which require attention before this article may be promoted to GA. These problems are mentioned in the Final GA Review by Brianboulton. Can editors who help resolve these problems please sign (with ~~~~), strike out and provide a short summary on the changes you have made, once you have completed an item of this list. Items may be added/adjusted at any time.

Earlier points not yet dealt with

  • Explanation of the role or function of the "President" and Chairman". (They are only mentioned in the infobox, not in the article.) 1. removed Chairman from infobox Murtoa (talk) 12:55, 5 September 2008 (UTC) 2. clarified role of chairman and added supporting ref Murtoa (talk) 12:35, 17 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Infobox

  • Too much information? Deletion of Fees, Revenue and No. of employees? removed Murtoa (talk) 12:38, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Prose

Lead section

  • "Wesley is the largest school in Australia by both student enrolment and school size". Define: "school size". removed ref to school size Murtoa (talk) 12:38, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • The fact that the fees are the highest in Victoria is mentioned here but not elsewhere in the article. The general rule is that anything mentioned in the lead should be reflected, in greater detail, in the body of the article. Include more information. moved away from lead to structure Murtoa (talk) 12:38, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

History section

  • Date decision of the state government to grant land and funds. sourced from Blainey Murtoa (talk) 12:38, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Include more information on Alfred and George Nicholas, apart from being benefactors, who were they?
  • "I have a problem with the projection of £200,000 in (presumably) 1933 to a 2004 value of $A75 million. For a start, why 2004? According to Measuringworth.com, £200,000 in 1933 has a current sterling value of about £10 million, which converts to around $A25 million. Can you check the basis of your figures?" The figures are from Lemon's book and school publications. Sheepunderscore (talk) 11:10, 5 September 2008 (UTC) But there is no need to convert to today's currency Murtoa (talk) 12:38, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The second sentence in the final paragraph needs a citation." supplied Murtoa (talk) 12:38, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Re McArthur: Four years is a pretty short tenure, and to talk about "the latter period" of such a brief time seems wrong. I'd omit the words "the latter period of" from the sentence." taken out Murtoa (talk) 12:38, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Images

  • Image placement causes problems on GA Reviewer's screen, (both Mozilla Firefox & IE). "The subsection edit links become displaced, and all bunch together around the Sport section On Internet Explorer that problem doesn't arise, but instead a huge white space appears under the Facilities heading. I tried solving the problem by some experimental image placements, but this didn't work. I wonder if either of these problems occur on your screen? Whether they do or not, it's something that needs fixing, and I don't know how to do this. I suggest you take the problem to WP:Help. (NB Overimaging may be the root of the problem)" I Have placed a question on the Wikipedia help desk page, will change what is necessary when a reply is given. Sheepunderscore (talk) 03:14, 6 September 2008 (UTC) Please see reply belowSheepunderscore (talk) 04:31, 6 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Structural

  • Merge Performing Arts and Sports with Facilities?
I question whether Arts and Sports are logical subsections of Facilities; I think the issue is there is little content in either and so look piecemeal in the context of the article. Murtoa (talk) 06:24, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I have combined Performing Arts and Sports into a Student Life section and placed before Facilities. Sport section corrected and slightly expanded Murtoa (talk) 14:24, 19 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wesley College Institute

  • More information needed, expand specialist article, information on premises, staff, corporate structure, funding, etc. (Is it an actual body, separate from the school, or is it a name which the school uses to pursue certain activities?)
  • This is difficult. There appear to be virtually no decent sources outside Wesley's. Have edited the Aust Certificate Education section to reflect that Wesley's work with ACER etc is very much an offshoot of the overall ACE initiative. The ACE is directed at establishing a uniform certificate across Australia. The Wesley initiative is around a specific version of it - the ACE - Vocational. Have also eliminated highly internal sources such as letters to parents. Murtoa (talk) 04:32, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

References

  • List Lemon's book as a "Source", not as Further reading. done Murtoa (talk) 12:38, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • List all other books cited, including Blainey et al and various Wesley College publications as a source. - Blainey added Murtoa (talk) 12:58, 5 September 2008 (UTC) Added all other books and college publications onto the list, however i did not include newsletters and the college's diary called the 'record book'. Sheepunderscore (talk) 04:21, 6 September 2008 (UTC) I actually think the source from the "record book" is dodgy as it's not really "published" - I think this places doubt over ref [33] generally Murtoa (talk) 13:25, 6 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Check Ref.[8] (according to GA reviewer it appears to be a pay-to-see subscription service) found alternative source Murtoa (talk) 12:54, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • References: [40], [42] and [43] should be listed with the other source books. Done Sheepunderscore (talk) 04:31, 6 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

MOS

  • Format single page numbers to read "p. 27" not "p.27" done Murtoa (talk) 13:03, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Format multiple page numbers to read: "pp. 247–48", with an ndash rather than a hyphen in the range. Done as suggested. Sheepunderscore (talk) 11:18, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Move See also section before the references list. Done as suggested. Sheepunderscore (talk) 11:10, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Image problem

This is in reply to the question at the help desk. The problems are there all right, both on Firefox and IE7. This is probably because of using too many images. I think what happens is, the section is shorter than all the images used there and the images stretch on to the next section. That's probably why the extra space and displacement of links occur. I'd suggest keeping only the important images as a thumbnail image next to the relevant section, and place the others in a gallery at the end of the article. Hope this helps. Cheers. Chamal Talk 03:48, 6 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Questions on GA Review suggestions

Hi all, just wondering if it is really necessary to merge the performing Arts and Sports with Facilities and if the facilities section should be renamed as some of the information isn't really a facility. Also is it necessary to explain the role of the college president as s/he is not really mentioned in the article besides the references to James Waugh, past president. if its necessary where should it be included??? Sheepunderscore (talk) 05:41, 6 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with the concern over combining Arts/Sports/Facilities although I think there is still an issue with the length of the facilities section. Suggest trim to genuinely notable elements. Murtoa (talk) 13:27, 6 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
May I suggest separating the technology section and leave the sustainability section with the facilities. I also believe that the arts and sports sections should be left separate, and that the facilities section should be left alone until we hear back from the copyedit, which will point out things regarding the prose, etc. From: Sheepunderscore (talk) 08:50, 7 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think the gallery is now being used as a bit of a repository for images that are not necessary in the article - the secondary logos, and pictures of facilities that are not illustrative. I recommend just keeping the ones already in the main article, and maybe creating a gallery on Wikimedia Commons to link to (as Duke University, an FA, has done here - it's regular pratice) if they really add something for readers. My vote would be that many are not. Harro5 12:40, 7 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • I agree with this. I'm not convinced it warrants a separate gallery to link to. Of the images currently in the gallery, I would vote - St K Rd Chapel - keep (interesting/notable), St K Rd library - delete (it's just a library), GW quadrangle - delete (it's just a school quadrangle, albeit a nice one), Fitzroy logo and banner- doubtful (although the Fitzroy initiative is interesting, don't believe these images are necessary or really enhance the content), St K Rd playground/classrooms - delete - not notable, Clunes Main street classroom - delete - doesn’t really illustrate the Clunes campus (it's not in it), and factually I'm not convinced it's actually used as a classroom, Clunes campus house - maybe keep (design of the houses is interesting).
I agree, i reckon we should keep a couple of the images in the gallery and the ones that we have voted not important or any additional images should go to a wikimedia commons page.Sheepunderscore (talk) 05:52, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • To clarify, my view is that we delete forever the ones that are unnecessary. The ones that remain we either have on a gallery in the article, or as suggested by Harro5 link to a commons page. In response to my image-by-image comments above, you may like to suggest which ones you think should be retained. Murtoa (talk) 07:28, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Just letting everyone know, I have started a wikimedia commons page. I believe the pictures on the article (SKR, GW & E Campus shots, cigarette card photo and success has a purple lining photo) should stay in the article as it is, and we should remove the skr library photo, gw quadrangle photo, the clunes main street shop/classroom photo from the gallery. All suggestions welcomed.Sheepunderscore (talk) 07:57, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Given that what was left in the gallery was a small disjointed set of images, I have deleted the gallery in favour of all additional images being viewable in the Commons area. Murtoa (talk) 12:51, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Am cascading development section into general facilities section. Removing discussion around 2006 work - ultimately in the context of the school's history and by comparison with all other similar schools I don't consider this notable. Keeping the Coates pavilion in but this potentially is also not notable. Regarding the possible future development which is referenced to a single school newsletter from 20 months ago, I see no evidence that supports these as active plans for the near future. Murtoa (talk) 11:46, 17 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wesley College: remaining points for attention

I’ve been asked to look at the article again. I don’t really have time for a full review before you renominate, but here are a few pointers as to how the article could be improved.

  • Lead:
    • Don’t just say "Uniting Church, a Christian denomination", as that is pretty uninformative. Try: "Uniting Church in Australia, a union of non-conformist Christian denominations"
      • My view is that worth adding "in Australia", but that a greater explanation is unnecessary. The UCA is Australia's 3rd largest denomination, there are over 40 UCA schools in Australia. An interested reader can always follow the link to find out more. Murtoa (talk) 13:04, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • "approximately 3,511 students"? Doesn’t sound like an approximation. The whole sentence is ugly, with "in total as of", and could easily be simplified to: "...largest school in Australia by enrolment, with (2008) 3,511 students and 1,250 staff".
      • interesting that this "ugly" sentence was passed unedited by the copywriter! Simplified as suggested. Murtoa (talk) 13:04, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • In last para, no comma is necessary after 2001 done Murtoa (talk) 13:04, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Structure" may not be the best heading for this brief section, since the title suggests something more than is provided. Think about it - perhaps "organisation" might be better.
    • From my view not really necessary. Sheepunderscore (talk) 04:20, 28 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • History:
    • It seems that the Chairman of the school committee is known as the President. Is this his formal title? If so, "President" should not be in quotes. The sentence could read: "James Waugh was Chairman of the school committee, with the title of President, from foundation to..."
      • It's unclear from the sources, which use the quotes as currently represented, suggesting that chairman wasn't as a matter of course referred to as President. But given the feedback, perhaps it's best to get rid of President altogether - the remaining statement is still factual. Murtoa (talk) 13:04, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • The £200,000 gift in about 1933 should have some indication of its present-day value. I provided some figures in the last GA review, and it might be an idea to use them.
      • have used Reserve Bank Australia calculator. Murtoa (talk) 13:04, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • (last para) "subsequently left during his tenure" is a bit awkward. I’d ditch the "subsequently". To avoid a repetition of "tenure", I’d say: "Ill health affected McArthur’s incumbency..."
      • done Murtoa (talk) 13:04, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Campuses: there are lots of routine facts and figures in this section, but more interesting information could be given. In particular, what activities go on at the educational camps? Are they all-year-round, or seasonal? Do all students have time at the camps? Also, on another matter, the city curriculum project needs explaining.
  • Sport
    • Has the college really had no successes in boys’ sports since 1962, apart from a single rowing title? You say it has enjoyed "greater success" in girls’ sports, without any details of this success.
      • the text does not state there have been no successes in boys’ sports since 1962; it states that there has been one athletics title since 1911, and that the last boys rowing title was in 1972. There has been no intention to list all premierships, but the intersted reader can find them all at the listed source. I have quantified the greater success of girls. Murtoa (talk) 13:23, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Some terms need explaining. What are "premierships" and "open firsts"?
      • have attempted to add more clarity to "premierships" and deleted only reference to "open firsts" Murtoa (talk) 13:23, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Facilities
    • Italics, rather than boldface, should be used for emphasis in the text – see WP:BOLDFACE done Murtoa (talk) 13:04, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Should the "sustainability" paragraph be included under "Facilities"? It seems more of a summary of policies and practices, and might be worth a section on its own. done Murtoa (talk) 13:04, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Wesley College Institute: I raised questions about this in the GA review which don’t seem to have been answered. In particular: who launched it? Who owns it? Who finances it? Does it have a separate corporate structure from the college? Clarity is required on all these points, within the body of the article.

I hope these points are of some help to you, and wish you well when you renominate the article. Brianboulton (talk) 18:27, 19 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

2008 results

The section proposed on 2008 results, which has been lifted from a school newsletter, is not notable. Wesley's results, which are undoubtedly better than say a small regional high school, are not remarkable compared to say other APS schools. "Performed well" is a relative term and although Wesley can be happy with its students' results, in my view they are not notable. Also, as I tried to explain when I reverted the edit, the 2008 results are transient. This content would no doubt be replaced in a year's time when the 2009 results come out. Wikipedia is not a place for recent news that will pretty quickly not be news. Nor is it a place for school marketing material. Happy to debate further. Murtoa (talk) 06:14, 7 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I strongly believe that the information I added was extremely valuable to prospective parents, locally and internationally. The phrase "performed well" may be rephrased, but I want to make it clear that the information was added to provide knowledge and to allow Wikipedia readers to now about Wesley's academic performance. Please correct me if I'm wrong, but from my understanding Wikipedia was designed to educate people and not for organizations such as schools to "compete" with each other, nor is it a place for schools to be compared with others. The transient material may be updated once a year, which is less that most of the things on this article. The information was not just from the school newsletter, it was shown in local Melbourne newspapers (Leader) as well national newspapers (The Age, Herald Sun). Furthermore the information is not "marketing material" it is simply the facts! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.175.154.79 (talk) 09:04, 10 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I don't believe the primary purpose of school articles on Wikipedia is to provide a guide to prospective parents. Wesley can find paid channels to do that. The fact that the reference provided from The Age newspaper was actually an advertisement from the school is indicative. The rest of the information provided was from the internal school newsletter and I would argue is not even particularly helpful given that the information was not comparative or benchmarked. eg. All IB Diploma students was (sic) awarded with a diploma and has a Media (sic) ENTER score of 97.60 raises questions such as - how many students at Wesley undertook the IB diploma? Is reaching the minimum level for being awarded an IB diploma a significant achievement? Ultimately I believe the primary motivation for schools quoting these figures is promotional and not encyclopaedic - but keen to hear other views. As a point of reference, a quick scan showed that no other APS schools in Victoria have this kind of material on their respective Wiki pages. Murtoa (talk) 04:16, 16 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I would like to disagree to you points and would like to say that wikipedia is a service to the community and by adding information such as results not only adds interests to the article, it also serves the community. In response to "minimum level for being awarded an IB diploma a significant achievement?" according to the IBO the lowest possible score in order to achieve a diploma would be in 2008 24 out of 45 (69.40 ENTER). In addition by comparing Wesley's results is not only a personal attack on the college but also biased to do so, as the college is an Open entry school it is unfair to compare wesley with the other APS schools. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.175.156.135 (talk) 08:15, 26 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think that the [5] myschool.edu.au website may clear up some of these assertions as these are the Government compiled results. StephenSmith (talk) 10:40, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The myschool site provides a number of data points across three junior year levels (but doesn't carry any info around ENTER scores ). Allied with the controversy around what constitutes a "similar" school, I think it would be quite unwise and unhelpful to selectively supplant myschool info to this article. Regarding the desire expressed above to provide a "guide to prospective parents", the Government has provided the myschool site with that exact intention, so I don't see a role for the wiki article in being a halfway house. Murtoa (talk) 12:21, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. I was pointing to the myschool site with respect to verification of student numbers and the "biggest" claim. In this respect it serves as a Government source, free from marketing influence. I did not mean for its content to be transferred here. StephenSmith (talk) 23:26, 24 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sir (?) Frank Goldstraw

In the list of headmasters there is reference to Sir Frank Goldstraw. I wonder if the author of the article would be kind enough to cite any reference to the headmaster Frank Goldstraw receiving a knighthood. I have been unable to find any reference to any Goldstraw receiving a knighthood in the official gazettes and I am not aware of this man ever using such a title.

Thank you for your kind assistance.

Martin Goldstraw —Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.172.78.116 (talk) 10:21, 9 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think Frank Goldstraw was ever knighted. One fairly detailed biography article doesn't indicate this title. See: [6] StephenSmith (talk) 02:25, 25 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"Open" entry policy

In the "Overview and Structure" section, Wesley speaks of an "Open Entry" policy. This assertion is somewhat in doubt. It is "open" in that there is no academic testing. But in an effort to achieve gender balance across the student population, the school presently admits female students in preference to males and has achieved an VCAT Ruling Granting Equal Opportunity Exemption in this regard. The result is male students can only be offered places after female students have accepted available places at the College. This isn't "open" in the sense of being readily accessible for male students. StephenSmith (talk) 19:00, 26 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

agree with this and have adjusted accordingly. Murtoa (talk) 00:01, 27 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"2001" "Sun-Herald" report

User 122.107.142.251 has not welcomed my removal in the main overview of the reference to the 2001 Sun-Herald "ranking" of the top ten Australian school for boys, based on the number of male alumni mentioned in "Who's Who in Australia". My reasons for viewing this as not being worthy of reference in the article are:
1. I believe that the Sun-Herald article refers to research undertaken in 1988 by Peel and McCalman. It quotes McCalman in the article. Thus I don't believe that research undertaken 22 years ago is nearly as relevant now.
2. Wesley has been a co-ed school for 32 years now, so the concept of "sixth best boys school" seems rather obtuse and irrelevant.
3. The only "bias" I am showing is wanting to improve the quality of the article. I note that this 1988 survey has appeared on some other articles, and I recently made a comment on the Scotch College, Melbourne article in similar vein.
On balance, I propose that this reference, slightly edited to reflect the ranking wasn't by Sun-Herald and probably wasn't done in 2001, be moved to the part of the article that refers to alumni. For the reasons above I don't consider it should be in the leading piece of the article. Happy to hear other views. Murtoa (talk) 13:40, 6 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

______

I see understand where your coming from and I agree with the compromise you suggested above. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.107.142.251 (talk) 11:43, 15 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The school does not even rank in the top 100 schools according to a 2010 article published in "The Australian" StephenSmith (talk) 05:40, 5 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Number of subjects offered

User 122.107.142.251 has not welcomed my removal of the number of subjects offered in VCE, IB etc. The quoted numbers neither match the source provided (which appears out of date anyway), nor the numbers provided by Wesley in its curriculum guide. And herein lies the problem - there is (unsurprisingly) no consistency between the two senior school campuses - St Kilda Rd offers 44 VCE and 22 IB subjects; Glen Waverley 39 and 24 (and from personal experience IB subjects are subject to minimum numbers before they are offered). Of course the number will change every year and as per current article they are out of date. Are the numbers notable? I don't think so - they are what you would expect from a school of Wesley's scale. I'm not sure what's "biased" about this viewpoint. I detect a sense that I'm perhaps downplaying Wesley's credentials; this is not the intention, however, to support the quality of the article I don't believe it should be unnecessarily promoting the school's virtues. Murtoa (talk) 06:56, 7 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

_____

What I meant was that the figures are quantative information which may be helpful to people researching Wesley, if you look at other encyclopedias they to have figures about things such as the number of subjects offered in the senior years of a school. I would also suggest that maybe informaiton regardign curriculum can be added to all school related articles. Futhermore upon readign through the history of this talk page and the history of the article Ive noticed that Murtoa refers to a lot of information added by other users to be petty or insignificant, for my benefit can you please define what you mean by insignificant. If everyone is "insignificant in a school such as wesley" then may I ask why there is even an article why not just the skeleton saying the school exists? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.107.142.251 (talk) 11:48, 15 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Apologies for my level of activity with this article. However, I'm acutely aware that this article is similar to many private school articles in that it is prone to many (usually) well-meaning contributions that tend to veer in one of two directions - trivial or non-notable info that is dear to ex-students or others close to the school (refer to WP:SCHOOLCRUFT for some examples common across all school articles), or information that is best suited to marketing documents authored by the school itself. I'd encourage you to read some of the feedback when this article was a candidate for Good Article status as it became clear through that exercise that the quantity of information often compromised quality. In the case of curriculum information, I am guided by an assessment of whether this information is truly notable, or is it information that you would expect of similar schools? In the case of Wesley, you would expect it to offer a lot of subjects driven purely by the size of the school. Is there something unique about Wesley's curriculum that would distinguish it from similar Melbourne private schools like Carey or Caulfield? I don't think so, but I would welcome other opinions. There is also a practical concern as pointed out above, as Wesley's multiple campuses make it difficult to define these statistics. Murtoa (talk) 06:23, 5 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

File:LA Adamson.JPG Nominated for speedy Deletion

An image used in this article, File:LA Adamson.JPG, has been nominated for speedy deletion for the following reason: Wikipedia files with no non-free use rationale as of 3 December 2011

What should I do?

Don't panic; you should have time to contest the deletion (although please review deletion guidelines before doing so). The best way to contest this form of deletion is by posting on the image talk page.

  • If the image is non-free then you may need to provide a fair use rationale
  • If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale, then it cannot be uploaded or used.
  • If the image has already been deleted you may want to try Deletion Review

This notification is provided by a Bot --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 08:26, 3 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Wesley College (Victoria). Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

  • Added archive https://web.archive.org/20080610080708/http://www.wesleycollege.net:80/awOffer.cfm to http://www.wesleycollege.net/awOffer.cfm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 02:38, 12 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Wesley_College,_Melbourne&oldid=1210169519"